Proposed Ivory Ban - The Saga Continues...

[Canadian cue]

What I'm saying is that when you treat "legal, pre-ban 1978 ivory"

Does anyone honestly believe that all the ivory being legally sold by vendors is ivory which was imported 37 years ago??? Common sense tells me that with all the various industries which use ivory in there products have exhausted that reserve a long time ago. This is where the problem is, once the ivory is cut up and processed it becomes real hard to date it and prove it was pre ban ivory. Also knowing that any rich guy can go on a safari and legally hunt an elephant and take home the tusks tells me that ivory is still legally entering the country. So what happens when this ivory gets sold?? There is lots of cracks in the system.

 

[cuesblues]

What makes the camel more important than the elephant?

Especially since elephants have all the good ivory, and the camel has never
contributed anything to cuemaking.
Even if the camel had ivory tusks...:smile:... I would still put the elephant ahead of
them from a cuemaking standpoint, or as a pet for that matter.

 

[Bavafongoul]

Really......Do You Have Any Idea What the Tonnage Is?

Before we embark on implying that the legal ivory here in the USA is being regularly diluted with the infusion of illegally imported ivory today, there needs to be a starting point on the data or it's silly to even discuss it. Do you know how much legal ivory exists today.....how many tons are there? Cue-makers are having to pay higher prices for ivory than ever before because it reflects the market supply and demand. Eventually, it will become too expensive to even consider using but that's how the market corrects itself. Some have made their final bulk buy of ivory for their inventory & I know one cue-maker that spent $20k this past summer doing that.

The companies that "advertise" and offer for sale ivory that is "pre-ban", as well as offering other types of ivory, do you seriously believe these firms are blatantly flaunting and thumbing their noses at the regulation and basically saying "_uck you."? This isn't like bootleggers during Prohibition and with all the attention and coverage being paid to the ivory ban.....like busting Old Granny at the local flea market selling trinkets........that these sellers and distributors of legal ivory are literally still operating today unsupervised, unaudited, unchecked...........OMG, you're dreaming.

The smuggling of ivory into the USA has nothing to do with a black market demand for using it in musical instruments, jewelry, pool cues, curios, etc. There's ample amount of legal ivory to handle that demand.........and to impose unnecessary, misguided new regulatory restrictions on the use and availability of a material like ivory, that is "LEGAL" ........even the current regulation clearly spells out the types and forms of legal ivory.......well, that's just misapplied good intentions in my opinion.

Matt B.

What I'm saying is that when you treat "legal, pre-ban 1978 ivory"

Does anyone honestly believe that all the ivory being legally sold by vendors is ivory which was imported 37 years ago??? Common sense tells me that with all the various industries which use ivory in there products have exhausted that reserve a long time ago. This is where the problem is, once the ivory is cut up and processed it becomes real hard to date it and prove it was pre ban ivory. Also knowing that any rich guy can go on a safari and legally hunt an elephant and take home the tusks tells me that ivory is still legally entering the country. So what happens when this ivory gets sold?? There is lots of cracks in the system.

 

[Thomas Wayne]

What I'm saying is that when you treat "legal, pre-ban 1978 ivory"

Does anyone honestly believe that all the ivory being legally sold by vendors is ivory which was imported 37 years ago??? Common sense tells me that with all the various industries which use ivory in there products have exhausted that reserve a long time ago. This is where the problem is, once the ivory is cut up and processed it becomes real hard to date it and prove it was pre ban ivory. Also knowing that any rich guy can go on a safari and legally hunt an elephant and take home the tusks tells me that ivory is still legally entering the country. So what happens when this ivory gets sold?? There is lots of cracks in the system.

I have no idea what your "common sense" conclusions are based on, but they are pretty much way off base.

In 2013 US FWS very publicly destroyed approximately 6 tons of elephant ivory, supposedly seized from illegal smuggling operations and representing "2,000+ adult elephants 'slaughtered'" OMG!... right? Wrong.

In early 2014 I filed a Freedom of Information Act demand for specific data on ALL of the 6 tons of ivory destroyed. Here are the salient facts:

1) The destroyed ivory was accumulated over a period of 25 years, making the average increase to that stockpile less than 500 lbs per year;

2) VERY few whole tusks, or "raw" tusk sections were included in the stockpile - less than 600 lbs;

3) The rest of the stockpile was primarily carved ivory, ready for sale as collectibles;

4) The bulk of those carved collectibles were 1000's of figurines and other small pieces;

5) A good amount of that ivory was not "seized" in the USA or at US borders;

6) That ivory which was not seized in or near the USA was ivory donated from international cases, or by foreign countries for scientific testing at the US FWS laboratory in Oregon - the only such lab in the world until 2012;

7) Using a multi-step formula that was "rounded up" at every step, FWS determined that the entire 6 tons of destroyed ivory represented about 1,000 whole tusks;

8) Using logic that only a bureaucrat could conceive, FWS argues that 1,000 tusks represents 2,000 elephants killed, because - and here I quote them - they "never heard of an elephant having a single tusk poached, or surviving the poaching process". They did not address the fact that the other 1,000 tusks must also represent another 2,000 dead elephants (by their twisted logic) ;

9) FWS officials specifically noted that we are "lucky" they didn't decide to declare each of the 1000's of individual trinkets a "separate slaughtered elephant";

10) No attempt by FWS has ever been made to consider that some percentage of any particular ivory seizure is almost certainly from elephants who did not die by human hands.

The fact is there has always been a HUGE stockpile of legal ivory in this country, for many reasons. Up until very recently tusks brought back from hunting safaris could legally be sold by the heirs of hunters - no paperwork required. Many, MANY companies legally imported ivory into this country right up to 1979, and many companies still exist that trade in documented legal ivory - Zinnoti, Warther. and others.

Your "common sense" suggestion that the legal ivory trade in this country is somehow bolstered by a secret influx of illegal ivory is unsupported by ANY factual data, including FWS own published findings, and is simply untrue. And that is part of the huge battle we face - average people, such as yourself, think they can rely on their own "common sense", and don't need actual facts to make accusatory statements having no merit whatsoever.

I am an educated part of the STILL LEGAL ivory trade in this country. I have every right to take personal exception to your accusations when you have obviously made no real effort to educate yourself on the facts of the matter - so I do take that exception. Sorry if you don't like that.

TW

 

[phil dade]

If anyone is that interested, see my post 14. One article in National Geographic is almost 50 pages of print and pictures. If you do not want to waste the time, please re read Mr Thomas Wayne's posts as they are 100% accurate and more condensed to the point.

Further, in many areas of Africa, Elephants are an endangerment to the tribes of humans. They destroy crops and foliage eating only the select parts causing waste and damage resulting in further food plight to the humans.

If the species was endangered, it would not be hunted as it is in many but not all areas. Botswana was closed for hunting but opened 8-10 years ago for wildlife management. Elephant tags were $50,000, lions were $70,000. The Rhino was from South Africa and I think was around $100,000. I WAS INVITED AS A GUEST AND REFUSED TO GO BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO KILL ANYTHING. However, my friend went and some of the results are pictured and all legal as a deer, black bear, moose or elk, antelope , or big horn.

As i said in post 14, as Mr wayne has explained, there is plenty of legal ivory. Also, the tusks you see fed the ebtire village for sometime and the hunters ate elephant kabobs.

 

[Canadian cue]

The fact is there has always been a HUGE stockpile of legal ivory in this country, for many reasons. Up until very recently tusks brought back from hunting safaris could legally be sold by the heirs of hunters - no paperwork required. Many, MANY companies legally imported ivory into this country right up to 1979, and many companies still exist that trade in documented legal ivory - Zinnoti, Warther. and others.

This very statement collaborates what I said, the ivory supply IS being supplemented with new incoming ivory. So to think that the only ivory being legally sold is pre ban 1979 is false. So before calling me a liar I did not say that the vendors sold illegal ivory I only stated that I did not believe that it was all preban 1979 Ivory and gave one example of how new Ivory could be getting to market. I then asked a question which was not answered.

 

[Bavafongoul]

OMG....Please Stop.....You're Embarassing Yourself......

Canadian cue......Please stop. Do you realize how skew-minded you portrayed yourself to appear with your last post?

I'm not accusing you of that.......just saying you did a darn good job of making yourself look that way with your off target remarks.
And saying you didn't accuse anyone of selling illegal ivory doesn't excuse your pretty obvious inference some firms must be doing this.

As Mr. Wayne expertly summarized the matter, there is an ample amount of legal ivory already here (PRE-BAN 1978 inventory).
Ivory brought in before 1978 doesn't count. All ivory legally brought in under prior ivory regulations (before July 2013) do not count.
Both of the aforementioned forms of ivory in the USA constitute legally imported ivory, regardless of your inclinations to quarrel about it.

Furthermore, all new ivory brought into the USA, as permitted and specifically described under the current ivory regulation, is non-sequitor to this topic.
Why you might ask or hopefully should out of sheer curiosity?......Well, it's pretty easy.....because the ivory regulation states it is permissible & totally legal.

The topic under discussion is about the ivory ban enactment so any ivory that's been permitted and certified (CITES) "LEGAL" ivory coming into the USA is not germane.
OMG, you make it seem like you are arguing based solely upon some National Geographic Special you saw and care little for the actual facts or pertinent background.

 

[Thomas Wayne]

The fact is there has always been a HUGE stockpile of legal ivory in this country, for many reasons. Up until very recently tusks brought back from hunting safaris could legally be sold by the heirs of hunters - no paperwork required. Many, MANY companies legally imported ivory into this country right up to 1979, and many companies still exist that trade in documented legal ivory - Zinnoti, Warther. and others.

This very statement collaborates what I said, the ivory supply IS being supplemented with new incoming ivory. So to think that the only ivory being legally sold is pre ban 1979 is false. So before calling me a liar I did not say that the vendors sold illegal ivory I only stated that I did not believe that it was all preban 1979 Ivory and gave one example of how new Ivory could be getting to market. I then asked a question which was not answered.

Okay, I want to believe that you are not stupid - I really do... but you're making that more difficult with every post.

Pre-ban ivory exists in this country by the tons. Many, many, MANY tons. Apparently you think that every ounce of ivory arriving legally into this country was immediately carved up into other items to feed some voracious market. The documented facts disprove such an assumption.

Thousands of tons have been held by museums over the centuries that we have been a country, and one by one those museums have been divesting of those collections. Some museums close, others change their focus; still others decide they want to separate themselves from the elephant ivory controversy and liquidate their holding for those reasons.

For example, in the late 80's or very early 90's a museum in Nevada offered several cuemakers (including me) 2,000 pounds of whole tusks at a bargain price. This ivory had been in that museum LONG before any CITES ban existed. I declined to buy in because I already had all the ivory I would ever need. As it turns out I was right, but that ivory was NEVER illegal in any way whatsoever.

Up until Directors Order 210 (2014) virtually all of the other elephant ivory being traded in this country came from private LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL collections. Trophy hunters, estate auctions, etc. Yet you want to incorrectly distort what I said to substantiate your insistence that "new incoming" ivory is entering our domestic marketplace.

Not only is this NOT true, it's rather naive to make such a claim. Well documented, and heavily reported is the fact that illegal ivory is traded in China and other Asian countries for as much as $1,300 to $1,500 per pound. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., LEGAL, LICENSED ivory dealers can still buy old estate ivory for around $80 - $90 per pound, and I (or anyone else) can buy that ivory retail from them for about $220 per pound.

So, using all your intelligence and wisdom, please help me understand why you think ANYONE dealing in illegal ivory would try to sneak it into a country with some of the most secure borders in the world - for a fraction of the [illegal] international price. Why would anyone do that? They can easily slip it into established Asian smuggling operations, very near their homelands, with virtual impunity. And they can do that for 3 to 4 times the profit. Use your "common sense" to explain that obvious problem with your theory.

However, before you busy your noggin addressing that little quandary, please quote where I "called [you] a liar". I don't believe I did, and I suspect you are saying that now to try to escalate this discussion to some sort of personal fight. So, to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I am NOT calling you a "liar" - frankly there's no need, since you clearly are posting from your own preconceived notions without having done any real research. Posting you opinion does not make you a liar, and I would never make such an accusation - no matter how uneducated and misguided such an opinion might be.

TW

 

[Canadian cue]

Why the personal insults?

I am sorry my comments have offended you Thomas and Bavafongoul. Despite what you guys may think I have done some research on this subject for my own education. As a builder of cues myself I wanted to make up my own mind as to whether or not I would use Ivory in my cues.
The point I was trying to make which I thought was valid and does relate to the conversation at hand. What I have read and come to understand is that distinguishing between pre-ban, legally hunted and poached ivories is a very difficult thing to do, near impossible. Law enforcement have no way of verifying the legitimacy of the ivories. From what I have read this is one of the issues which has instigated the proposed legislation.
This is a quote from U.S Fish and wildlife
Illegal ivory trade is driving a dramatic increase in African elephant poaching, threatening the very existence of this species. It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory, such as ivory imported in the 1970s, from ivory derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts have shown clearly that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal trade. By significantly restricting ivory trade in the United States, it will be more difficult to launder illegal ivory into the market and thus reduce the threat of poaching to imperiled elephant populations.
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#16
And despite your claim that there is little motive to smuggle ivory into the U.S., it still is happening.
http://www.takepart.com/article/201...nspectors-keep-ivory-and-rhino-horn-smuggling
So unless you want me to believe that your government is involved in a conspiracy why would an average person like myself not believe the information provided by a source like U.S. fish and wildlife?

 

[Tommy-D]

I have a couple relatively simple questions.

As far as "new" or recently harvested ivory,isn't it unusable until it has a couple decades worth of age on it?

As a player,I've always preferred ivory ferrules. Are there any new,"cutting edge" materials out there that approach the qualities that made ivory the go-to material for decades?

I can't say this for sure,but I think I got the last little bit of Mason Micarta from Chris Hightower a few weeks ago,but haven't used any yet.

I also think I have a source for a material I don't think anyone has used yet,but the biggest blocks of it available would only make 6 1" square ferrule blanks. Tommy D.

 

[scdiveteam]

Hi,

There is an agenda to ban ivory by the powers that be today. What the outcome will be is pretty clear.

Re hashing the existing rules of the game and discussing the quantities of dead elephants on the forest floor each year is not going to change anyone's mind concerning this issue politically. The opposition understands the subject and won't be swayed by the logic of the truth. They don't want negotiate!

The cards are stacked at this point and the weight of the political power and resolve will be witnessed.

Arguing about this subject and hoping it will make a difference is futile at this point unless you believe in Santa, Easter Bunny or the existence of the Elephants Graveyard. LOL

The die has already been cast and this situation is in a downward spiral IMO. I feel sorry for those who are invested in Ivory because our comrades in the White are burning down a market for no good reason other than it makes them feel good.

JMO,

Rick

 

[RBC]

I am sorry my comments have offended you Thomas and Bavafongoul. Despite what you guys may think I have done some research on this subject for my own education. As a builder of cues myself I wanted to make up my own mind as to whether or not I would use Ivory in my cues.
The point I was trying to make which I thought was valid and does relate to the conversation at hand. What I have read and come to understand is that distinguishing between pre-ban, legally hunted and poached ivories is a very difficult thing to do, near impossible. Law enforcement have no way of verifying the legitimacy of the ivories. From what I have read this is one of the issues which has instigated the proposed legislation.
This is a quote from U.S Fish and wildlife
Illegal ivory trade is driving a dramatic increase in African elephant poaching, threatening the very existence of this species. It is extremely difficult to differentiate legally acquired ivory, such as ivory imported in the 1970s, from ivory derived from elephant poaching. Our criminal investigations and anti-smuggling efforts have shown clearly that legal ivory trade can serve as a cover for illegal trade. By significantly restricting ivory trade in the United States, it will be more difficult to launder illegal ivory into the market and thus reduce the threat of poaching to imperiled elephant populations.
http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#16
And despite your claim that there is little motive to smuggle ivory into the U.S., it still is happening.
http://www.takepart.com/article/201...nspectors-keep-ivory-and-rhino-horn-smuggling
So unless you want me to believe that your government is involved in a conspiracy why would an average person like myself not believe the information provided by a source like U.S. fish and wildlife?

Canadian

I'm very glad to see that you've done some research, but I also want to remind you that our government (and many others as well) is all about politics these days. And politics is about money, so they will follow the lobbyists and the money. It's all about chest pounding and pocket lining. Period!

On the quote from the US FWS:
Yes, illegal ivory trade is driving poaching. But, the FWS's own reports show that very little of that comes to the US. Most of it goes to Asia if I'm not mistaken. Also, the estimated amount of ivory collected by poaching is way over shadowed by the ivory that is already available through natural death and other legal means. If that ivory was made available to sell, not only would it bring needed revenue to those countries with poaching problems, but it would also more than completely supply the demand for ivory possibly eliminating the complete need for poaching.
Yes, it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between 2 pieces of ivory, one fresh and one pre ban. But, that's the entire reason for the 1978 ban and how it works. It basically applies all it's muscle at the borders. There doesn't need to be any special method of testing at the borders. If it's not clearly documented, then it get's confiscated. This works, and is why very little of the poached ivory finds it's way to the US.

Now about the story you linked.
The guy arrested is a bad guy, and should go to jail. But, there's no way to know if the ivory he illegally brought into the country was from poached animals or not. Also, the naturally occurring ivory being made available would completely eliminate this, and the need for poaching in the first place. The comments about staining it so it looks antique doesn't make sense because it would wouldn't matter anyway. The way I understand it is that it would have to be personal property and would have to be completely documented as to when and where it came from. I'm sure Thomas would know more about the actual rules, but I don't think you can bring in ivory just because it's "antique". At least not without proof. Well, obviously not because they arrested the guy for it.
The other thing that seems odd to me is the math. They said that they confiscated 400 pieces worth 1 million dollars. But yet they say that he "paid to have ivory from African elephants carved to certain specifications and then stained or dyed so that it would appear old", which would tell me that the pieces were not full tusks but rather smaller items that could be individually sold. So, if he had 400 tusks valued at that million dollars, then it would equate out to real numbers. 400 small 12 lb tusks comes out to about a million bucks. But carved items for sale rarely average 12 pounds each. I think it's a typical embellishment of the math to make things out to be something they are not. This by itself causes me to be suspect as to whether the article is reporting news or opinion.

Back to the politics side. While I was at Cuestock, I heard some very interesting information. One of the largest "save the elephants" organizations has a huge financial war chest. The executives of this "charitable" organization make stupid incomes. They definitely have a vested interest in keeping fight for the elephants alive. If they really cared about the elephants, they could all quit their high paying jobs and give the money they've accumulated to the governments that fight to poachers. It was estimated that they have enough money to put a single armed guard on each and every African elephant alive for many years.
Think about it, do they really want to save the elephants? Seems like it would be easy to do.


To me, this is a fight about right and wrong, not about ivory or elephants. I don't use ivory, and love the elephants. But all of this is politics. Chest pounding and pocket lining.


Royce

 

[Thomas Wayne]

I am sorry my comments have offended you Thomas and Bavafongoul.

Can't speak for Bavafongoul, but I'm not offended by you any more than I am offended by a six-year old who still believes in Santa.

Despite what you guys may think I have done some research on this subject for my own education. As a builder of cues myself I wanted to make up my own mind as to whether or not I would use Ivory in my cues.

Yes. The depth of your research, as indicated by the links you include below, seems to to reached all the way to reading online press releases filled with exaggerations and lies meant to forward the FWS and wildlife NGO's agenda(s). You may be surprised to learn that level of research is not very impressive.

The point I was trying to make which I thought was valid and does relate to the conversation at hand. What I have read and come to understand is that distinguishing between pre-ban, legally hunted and poached ivories is a very difficult thing to do, near impossible. Law enforcement have no way of verifying the legitimacy of the ivories. From what I have read this is one of the issues which has instigated the proposed legislation.

Please cite the scientific studies you've read on this subject, and give us some detailed analysis drawn from those studies. The analysis need not be your own - you can copy and paste if you like, as long as you cite the actual study (not just post links to online liberal press releases).

By the way, I have been in close ONGOING communication with a number of doctorate researchers - living in Africa, as it so happens - who have devoted decades of their lives to the research and study of the African elephant problem(s). The results of their studies have been published and embraced by FWS for many years. Currently, their conclusions contrast sharply with the bullshit FWS is promoting.

In fact, up until 2013, FWS has been very clear in their published findings that there is NO SIGNIFICANT ILLEGAL IVORY TRADE IN THE U.S. However, after being elected to office with the help of large funding efforts from wildlife NGOs, Obama made "repayment" appointments of key officials backed by those NGOs. Among them is Daniel Ashe, a puppet and staunch supporter of the NGOs who are working so hard to push this unconstitutional ban through.

This is a quote from U.S Fish and wildlife

[quote redacted as it is repetitive with the link below]

http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html#16
And despite your claim that there is little motive to smuggle ivory into the U.S., it still is happening.
http://www.takepart.com/article/201...nspectors-keep-ivory-and-rhino-horn-smuggling

So unless you want me to believe that your government is involved in a conspiracy why would an average person like myself not believe the information provided by a source like U.S. fish and wildlife?

Okay, now that is just plain funny. Admittedly it qualifies as "found" humor, since you are obviously unaware of how ridiculous your trust in the integrity of the FWS is, but it's funny anyway.

FWS is on one side of this great debate, and they have a GREAT vested interest in pushing this ban through. Quoting them as an authority of the truth is like relying on the verbal assurances of a used car salesman who hopes to sell you a car.

In fact, my government (as you say) IS involved in a conspiracy - may conspiracies, as it turns out. Clearly you naively believe anything the US government would claim, despite the almost daily revelations of their corruption and their lying to the American public. But why, you would ask, would anyone in power lie about this important issue. I'll tell you why:

1) FWS is technically a law enforcement agency, but they have always been the "red-headed stepchild" of federal LEAs. Understaffed and underfunded, they have long yearned to be like their big brothers, the DEA, FBI, US Customs, etc. This is finally their big chance, and they fully intend to capitalize on it.

2) The Wildlife Conservation Society - whose published "facts" are heavily drawn upon by FWS for their published statements (such the one you linked to above) is a mega-multi-million dollar enterprise. It's literally "Big Business". They take in several hundred million dollars each year in donations and government grants - the government gave them more than $60 million in 2012. Their president/ceo is personally compensated by over $1 million per year, and that does not include expenses such as private jet travel and limousine service. They have net assets in excess of $800 million. Do you think they would be willing to risk that enormous fortune and future income by admitting their plan is flawed and will ultimately spell the elephants' demise?

3) CITES, TRAFFIC, ETIS, and United Nations have all done studies on the African elephant problem - and their conclusions and statistics are almost diametrically opposed to the FWS and liberal news crap you're citing here as "gospel". Yet FWS, The White House administration, Hillary Clinton (and her ilk) ALL ignore their official findings as if they didn't even exist. Instead they continue to feed the US news agencies with false statistics the further their own agenda. This is actually the most obvious government conspiracy I have ever seen.

In the end the truth will come out - it always does. The real question is, will it happen before or after the citizens of this country have lost even more of their precious constitutionally "guaranteed" freedoms to a government bent on shredding the Bill of Rights?

Being Canadian you've already lost all your rights to your government, if you even had any to begin with. So you obviously have no reason to care about uncovering the truth on our government. But I do.

TW

 

[Canadian cue]

Thank you Royce for your perspective as well as presenting it in a non condescending manner.

 

[Bavafongoul]

Canadian Cue.....

CC....I am not offended or annoyed with your opinion or comments. Diverse viewpoints, despite being contrary at times, are still what makes things hopefully balance out in life. I just think if something is legal, well, it's perfectly acceptable to take advantage of it....sort of being akin to a IRS loophole......completely permissible until the loophole gets closed.

 

[Canadian cue]

If I'm "condescending" - which I don't think I have been - it's because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, but are bound and determined to argue anyway. In any event, I absolutely did NOT "call [you] stupid". If you think I did, please QUOTE ME (in context). If you are unable to quote me, then please apologize for the accusation.

Okay, I want to believe that you are not stupid - I really do... but you're making that more difficult with every post.

So how exactly was I suppose to interpret this statement?


More importantly, I've come to realize I am wasting my time debating any of this with you. You've made up your mind and will only consider "information" that supports your mistaken claims. No matter what studies you CLAIM to have read and what "common sense" you CLAIM to posses you simply cannot counter one simple truth:

How exactly did you come to this conclusion based on my last post? I simply said that I had accepted your challenge to become better informed on the subject and that I would site published papers in my responses and asked that you do the same. I even went as far as to give you credit for being more informed.



TW

Good day Mr Wayne

 

[harris cue comp]

ivory

I really to hate to agree with Thomas wayne , but I just processed 90 pounds of ivory. when I received these tusks they had brass caps on both ends and had been hanging in someones house for over fourty years. do the math.
thanks tw
Robert harris

 

[Thomas Wayne]

I really to hate to agree with Thomas wayne , but I just processed 90 pounds of ivory. when I received these tusks they had brass caps on both ends and had been hanging in someones house for over fourty years. do the math.
thanks tw
Robert harris

A cuemaking friend just cut into a similar tusk and the hollow was filled with a wadded newspaper from 1973. He just bought the tusk from a retail ivory dealer last year (2014).

There is no "new incoming" ivory market in this country. Just old, OLD tusks that have been in this country LEGALLY for a very long time.

TW
(PS: Regarding the NY case of "smuggling" ivory highlighted by our Canadian friend, the photo of whole tusks attached to that article was typical of the tainted journalism surrounding this issue. The actual seizure was thousands of small, cheaply carved trinket-like items, most of which could fit easily into the palm of one's hand. The ONLY reason to include the whole-tusks photo was to intentionally mislead the reader as to the true nature of this guy's crimes.)

 

[Thomas Wayne]

I really to hate to agree with Thomas wayne , [...]

Sorry to hear that, but consider the bright side - every time you do agree with me you're right.

TW

 

[Thomas Wayne]

Okay, I want to believe that you are not stupid - I really do... but you're making that more difficult with every post.

So how exactly was I suppose to interpret this statement?

Exactly! How you choose to interpret a statement is entirely up to you, but that interpretation is not fact, nor is it not a direct QUOTE either.

For example, when I wrote that legal, licensed ivory dealers buy and sell ivory even to this day you interpreted that to mean that's proof there is "new incoming" ivory in the marketplace. In fact, that is neither what I said nor what I meant, but you twisted it almost beyond recognition to support your wholly incorrect claims.

In the same way, I absolutely did NOT call you stupid in the above statement - in fact I expressly said that I do NOT want to believe you are stupid. You chose to incorrectly interpret the exact opposite meaning because (I guess) you wanted a basis for "righteous indignation". I am not responsible for how YOU interpret anything, whether you are being disingenuous in that interpretation or not - and an "interpretation" of someone else's statement is NOT the same as them actually saying anything.

TW